' This criminal revision application filed under section 439, Cr.P.C. Read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C., has given rise to an interesting argument, but when the statutory provisions with which it is concerned, are examined the decision does not present any difficulty.
2. Accused Zahid Hussain and Iftikhar, who were wanted in Crime No,622 of 1990, F.IA., Passport Cell, under section 6(1)(a)(f)(j) of the Passports Act, 1974, and sections 419, 420, 468, 471/109, P.P.C. Were allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, in the sum of Rs,25,000 each with P.R. Bond in the like amount, vide order dated 10-11-1990. Applicant Aijaz Ahmad intended to furnish surety on behalf of above accused by depositing the registration document of the car, bearing registration No,Q-0664, valued at Rs,1,90,000, but on scrutiny it was found that through mistake his name was entered as Aijaz Hussain instead of Aijaz Ahmad. Since the registration book could not be got corrected immediately, the applicant produced prize bonds valued at Rs,50,000, which were accepted. On 13-4-1991 the applicant made an application before the learned Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, seeking permission to substitute the surety document as he was in need of money and wanted his prize bonds back. This application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 25-4-1991 with the following order:-- "An application has been moved by the Advocate for the surety for the return of surety amount deposited in the form of prize bonds on the ground that the same is required by the applicant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/surety that the surety is prepared to furnish fresh surety in the shape of registration document of vehicle. .
' I have observed that it is daily routine practice of some of the Advocates that when bail is granted, they furnish one surety to get the release of accused, and then they go on repeating such applications for change of surety which unnecessarily wastes the precious time of Courts, with the result that other important matters are not considered and taken up. The applicant was not compelled by this Court to furnish surety in the shape of prize bonds and he was at liberty to furnish surety in any form. This practice has multiplied the Court work. In order to discourage such practice, the prayer of the surety/applicant cannot be allowed. I, therefore, find no merits in the present application which is hereby dismissed."
' This order is the subject-matter of the present revision application.
3. I have heard Mr. S.E. Hussaini, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.ZA. Qureshi, learned counsel for the State. The latter has not supported the impugned order.
4. Section 499, Cr.P.C. Speaks of bond of accused and sureties in the following words:-- "499.---(1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
(2) If, the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge."
5. Rule 16 of Chapter V, Part G of the Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars provides for satisfactory evidence to be produced by the person offering himself as surety in the following terms:-- "16.-- When a Court orders the release on bail of an accused person, with surety or sureties, every person offering himself as surety shall produce satisfactory evidence, such as title deeds, a certified copy of an extract from the Record of Rights, deposit receipt, Government Promissory Notes or other evidence of title to property, movable and immovable, of his solvency to the extent of the amount for which bail is to be given, and shall be examined, in the case of a Court of Session by the Accountant and in other cases by the Nazir or Sheristedar of the Court, on oath or solemn affirmation, touching the value of his property and the debts and liabilities to which the said property is subject. After being examined the papers shall be placed before the Court for directions as to whether the surety be accepted and if the Court directs that the surety be accepted, the surety shall make and file his affidavit of justification and sign the bond: ' Provided that, in cases where the amount of the bond does not exceed Rs,500, the Accountant of a Court of Session may be permitted to accept a surety without reference to the Court."
' Rules 17 and 18 of the aforesaid Circulars are again relevant in this behalf.
6. Sections 501, 502 and 513, Cr.P.C. Speak of power to order sufficient bail when that first taken is insufficient, discharge of sureties and deposit of money instead of recognizance. There is nothing in law which may even faintly suggest that a surety cannot substitute the surety documents after their acceptance. No such law was even cited by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. Since the said order has no legal sanctity it is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to accept the registration documents in respect of the car offered by the applicant if the same are otherwise found genuine and return the prize bonds valued at Rs,50,000 to the applicant.
7. In the result the revision application is allowed.